A Response to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Munich Document U.S. Theological Consultation, 1983

1. The Munich common statement of the Joint
International Commission for Theological Dialogue between
the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regarding
"The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the
Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity," dated July
6, 1982, is a landmark in the recent history of Orthodox/Roman
Catholic relations. The text is a creative statement about
the high degree of agreement that already exists between the
two churches. The Commission deserves commendation for its
achievement. What follows is a response to the text on the
part of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the United
States established by the Standing Conference of Canonical
Orthodox Bishops of America (SCOBA) and the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) which was reached unanimously at
its 26th meeting, May 23-25, 1983 in New York.

2. That a joint statement was published
by the Commission is in itself an important achievement. The
text moves us farther away from our history of mutual estrangement
and allows the churches to speak with one voice on matters
at the heart of the Christian faith. The decision to publish
the text promptly for wider reaction was welcome. We hope
that this procedure will be continued in the future.

3. The text requires careful reading, and
to some its language may seem unfamiliar, despite many biblical
and liturgical allusions. A clear attempt is made not to impose
specific terminologies of either Roman Catholic or Orthodox
theology. Rather, the text appropriately uses new formulations
as needed in order to hand on the faith to men and women of
our time. For example, use of the word "event" (événement,
to gegonos) found in I, 1, bis; I, 2; I, 3; I, 4b; I, 5d,
para. 2; II, 1, para. 3; II, 2, para. 3, is helpful in stressing
the work of the Trinity. However, this word as well as others
such as "sacrament," "mystery," "word,"
and "energies," are open to various interpretations
and thus call for further elucidations.

4. We have several suggestions which, if
followed, might facilitate discussion and assessment of this
and future documents.

a. It is not always clear to whom the
document is addressed. If addressed to the Church at large,
then much in the text is inaccessible.

b. Criticism of omissions or overemphases
could often be forestalled if the document were situated
within the context of the long-range agenda of the Commission.
The publication of an annotated text of this agenda would
be appreciated.

c. Publication of commentaries or background
papers by the Commission would be helpful in explicating
the document and would make it more accessible to non-specialists.

d. In formulating texts, a more systematic
and consistent numbering of paragraphs would be desirable.
e. The document itself recognizes that this is but "the
first step in the effort to fulfill the program." It
is to be hoped therefore that this text will be reformulated
in the light of critical responses and the developments
of other sections of the dialogue. This process has proved
extremely useful in other international dialogues.

5. Our Consultation took note of several
specific doctrinal themes raised in the document. In discussing
thesynaxis, or eucharistic celebration (especially in I, 5,
b, c and I, 6), the text states clearly that the eucharistic
celebration is the anamn‘sis of the work of Christ as
savior made manifest by the Spirit, but also that the Spirit
transforms the sacred gifts into the body of Christ in order
to effect the growth of the Body of Christ which is the Church.
Particularly welcome are the assertions that "the entire
(eucharistic) celebration is an epicl‘sis, which becomes
more explicit at certain moments" and that "the
Church is continually in a state of epicl‘sis (I, 5,
c).

6. The formulation of the relationship
between the Son and the Spirit (I, 6, para. 2), though it
does not address thefilioque question directly, does state
that "the Spirit which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26)
as the sole source in the Trinity ... is communicated to us
particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes
in time and eternity." The text thus gives a solid basis
for further statements about the Spirit in the treatment of
the mission of the Spirit. Indeed the entire section which
discusses the relation of the Spirit's activity to the historical
mission of Christ and to the mystery of the Risen Christ (I,
4 to I, 6) is well formulated.

7. Collegiality and the synodal nature
of the church are affirmed by the references to "communion
in the same patriarchate" or "in some other form
of regional unity" or "communion between sister
churches" (III, 3, 6), as well as to a bishop's "solicitude
for the local community" and "his care for the Church
spread throughout the world" (III, 4, para. 2). However,
the appeal to the term "sister churches" is unclear.
Does it refer to patriarchates or jurisdictions in full communion
or to the special relationship between the Orthodox Church
and the Roman Catholic Church?

8. The expression the "episkop‘
of the entire Church" (III, 4, para. 2) needs further
exploration in the context of the separated Christian churches.
The way in which the document focuses on the "local church"
through eucharistic ecclesiology does not readily correspond
to the actual situation of bishops and their churches today.
Although this model offers some useful insights, the character,
numerical size, and geographical extent of most local churches
makes application problematic.

9. Regarding the office of episkopos and
other institutions, such as ordination and sacramental practices,
the text does not pay sufficient attention to historical development,
creating an impression of oversimplification. For example,
the appeal to the "uninterrupted series of episcopal
ordinations, beginning from the holy apostles" (II, 3),
or the "college of the apostles" (III, 4, para.
2) needs refinement. Other statements about apostolicity and
apostolic faith are better developed, as in II, 4, para. 2.
Further, the use of New Testament texts lacks rigor and does
not coincide with the requirements of responsible historical-critical
scholarship.

10. The text should have discussed the
diversity of ministries within the one body (cf. II, 1, para.
4); likewise, some reference to the priesthood proper to all
the faithful would have been in order. The relation between
the bishop's ministerial priesthood and that of all the faithful
is not adequately explored. The relation of the bishop and
the presbyter is not sufficiently addressed. We hope that
significant aspects of these major problems will be addressed
in future documents.

11. The sections of the document regarding
kerygmatic aspects of koinonia and its relationship to the
"unity in faith" (II, 2, para. 3) and "communion
in the same kerygma, and so in the same faith" (III,
3, b, para. 2) need clarification. It is not always apparent
that the text sufficiently distinguishes between faith (or
credal) affirmations and theological explanations about faith
that need not require unanimity.

12. The document is open to criticism for
not sufficiently recognizing the social dimensions of church
and eucharist. It seems to prescind from concrete social problems.
When mention is made of social issues, this seems to be an
afterthought (e.g., II, 4, para. 3). When the text mentions
the transformative aspects of church and eucharist, this is
usually in the context of individual repentance, conversion,
self sacrifice (cf. I, 6, par a. 3; II, 1, para. 3; II, 2,
para. 2). It neglects the Christian's vocation to contribute
to the transformation of society (I, 1).

13. The sections which discuss the eucharist
should situate it more clearly in the context of Christian
initiation and the total sacramental life of the Church. It
is encouraging therefore that the International Commission
has taken as its next task the study of the sacraments of
baptism, chrismation and the eucharist and the unity of the
Church.